McInchak Settlement: $275,000.00

ABSTRACT: RE: Mclnchak, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al, Defendant/Respondent (Case No. M128062). The Minutes for Trial Setting on June 17, 2015, Courtroom 14, Hon Thomas W. Wills presiding, state, in part, “The settlement is recited for the record: Plaintiff's counsel to submit the finalized settlement allocation to the Worker's Compensation Judge for approval. $275,000.00 is to be paid to Plaintiff's attorney's trust account or as designated by the Plaintiff within 30 days of delivery to Mr Hurley of the signed order by the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board."  The Minutes document copy is embedded.

McInchak Settlement 06-17-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Mclnchak, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al, Defendant/Respondent (Case No. M128062).
Minutes, Trial Setting, June 17, 2015,

Settlement Conference & Trial Setting: McInchak vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M128062)

UPDATE III: RE: McInchak vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al (M128062), Trial Setting, 6/3/2015, Dept 14 - 13:30
On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Hon. Thomas W. Wills met with Respondent Attorney City Attorney Don Freeman and Plaintiff Attorney Michelle Welsh in chambers. After approximately 10 minutes, Judge Wills announced that the matter was continued to June 17, 2015 at 1:30 P.M.

Schedule Events

Type Date Time Location Case Management Conference 12/9/2014 09:00:00 Courtroom 14 Further Case Management Conference 4/14/2015 10:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/22/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 6/3/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 6/17/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14

UPDATE II: RE: McInchak vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (Case No. M128062) Settlement Conference and Trail Setting, 5/29/2015, Dept. 14 – 13:30
On Friday, after presiding over five legal cases, Hon. Thomas W. Wills had the Plaintiff’s and Respondent’s attorneys meet in chambers. Over the course of about two hours, representatives of the City, including City Attorney Don Freeman, City Administrator Doug Schmitz, City’s Insurance Attorney and Insurance Adjuster, and McInchak’s widow’s attorney, Michelle Welsh, and Steve McInchak’s widow, Karen McInchak, alternated meeting with Judge Wills privately. At about 4:50 P.M., both groups convened in Judge Will’s chambers and at 5:00 P.M. the matter of “Trial Setting” was continued to Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Dept. 14 @ 1:30 P.M.

Schedule Events

Type Date Time Location Case Management Conference 12/9/2014 09:00:00 Courtroom 14 Further Case Management Conference 4/14/2015 10:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/22/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 6/3/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14

UPDATE: Hon. Thomas W. Wills, Superior Court, County of Monterey, is scheduled to preside at a Settlement Conference and Trial Setting for McInchak vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M128062) on Friday, May 29, 2015, Courtroom 14, 2nd Floor, Monterey Courthouse, at 1:30 P.M. The 5/22/2015 Settlement Conference date has been vacated. Schedule Events information from SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY website is reproduced..

Schedule Events

Type Date Time Location Case Management Conference 12/9/2014 09:00:00 Courtroom 14 Further Case Management Conference 4/14/2015 10:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/22/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Settlement Conference 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14 Trial Setting 5/29/2015 13:30:00 Courtroom 14

Hanson, John vs. City of Carmel By The Sea (M128436): Case Progress Conference, 6 January 2015

ABSTRACT: RE: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY Hanson, John vs. City of Carmel By The Sea (M128436): Case Progress Conference, Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14. Note: MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, DEPARTMENT 14, 2nd Floor, Hon. Thomas W. Wills, Supervising Judge, Civil and Family Law Division, Master Civil Trial Department, Case Management, Appellate Department, Alternate. Case Details, Case Information, Name, Attorney Information and Schedule of Events are reproduced from SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY website.

Case Details of GNM128436 ;  Hanson, John vs. City of Carmel By The Sea

Case Information Case Number GNM128436 Case Caption Hanson, John vs. City of Carmel By The Sea Filing Date 7/3/2014 Case Type Civil (General) Filing Type Complaint Original Filing Date 7/3/2014 Agency Agency Number Name / AKA Party Type Last Name First Name Middle Name Is AKA DEF City of Carmel By The Sea PLF Hanson John Attorney Information Attorney Type Last Name First Name Middle Name PLF Stamp Michael W. DEF Dinkin Jeffrey A Schedule Events Type Date Time Location Case Progress Conference 1/6/2015 09:00:00 Courtroom 14

$208,938.49: TOTAL TAXPAYER EXPENDITURES TO PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP (May 2013-July 2014)

ABSTRACT: Prior to the 9 September 2014 City Council Agenda Items related to Public Consulting Group (PCG), namely, Consent Calendar Item 7.E: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into a Contract with Grancius Inc. For Agenda and Legislative Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $39,168 for a Period September 15, 2014 through March 15, 2016 and a Contract for Project Management Oversight Services with Public Consulting Group in an Amount not to Exceed $20,800 and Consent Calendar Item 7.F: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into a Contract with Springbrook Software for a New Financial, Human Resources and payroll System in an Amount not to Exceed $190,683 for the Period of September 30, 2014 through September 30, 2018 and a Contract for related Project Management Oversight Services with Public Consulting Group in an Amount not to Exceed $73,200 (both pulled from the Agenda), the City Council approved unanimously a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend an existing contract with Public Consulting Group (PCG) for services related to the finalization of the City's 2013 key initiatives; the development of the strategic information technology plan and interactive government projects and related information technology consulting services at the City Council Meeting on August 6, 2013. “The total price for the work performed under this Amendment, which may not be exceeded without the City's prior written approval, is $48,800.” Later, the City Council approved unanimously a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into a Professional Services Consulting Agreement with Public Consulting Group, Inc. to Provide IT Strategic Plan Implementation Support and Project Management Services for the Implementation of Year One of the Information Technology Strategic Plan in an amount not to exceed $75,000 at the February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting. Moreover, Sally W.Nagy, Senior Consultant, PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP (PCG) Technology Consulting, was to “provide CIO Advisory, Project Management, and related services to the City” at a hourly compensation rate of $160. Based on the City’s Check Registers, the City has compensated Public Consulting Group at total of $208,938.49.  BY MONTH, City’s Check Register Entries for PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP Table, CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES (Term: February 2014 – January 2015) Table, EXISTING CONTRACT & AMENDMENT NO. 1 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES (March 2013 – January 2014) Table and City’s Check Register Entries for PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP are presented.

BY MONTH, City’s Check Register Entries for PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP CONTRACTUAL SERVICES, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT, CONTRAL SERVICES IT SUPPORT SVCS, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTING, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-SYSTEM AMIN SERVICES

MONTH OF CHECK ISSUANCE	TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENDITURE TO PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP
June 2014	$18,261.51
May 2014	$38,881.69
March 2014	$     300.00
February 2014	$  4,600.00
December 2014	$22,406.51
October 2013	$35,667.90
September 2013	$18,500.00
August 2013	$18,817.17
June 2013	$42,019.21
May 2013	$  9,484.50
TOTAL EXPENDITURE	$208,938.49

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
Executed 5th day of February 2014
Term: February 2014 – January 2015

MONTH SERVICES PROVIDED	TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENDITURE TO PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP
February 2014	$  5,406.51
March 2014	$19,940.06
April 2014	$18,941.63
May 2014	$ 12,855.00
June 2014	$15,410.00
Total	$72,553.20

Source: INVOICES, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHECKS

EXISTING CONTRACT & AMENDMENT NO. 1 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES (March 2013 – January 2014)

MONTH SERVICES PROVIDED	TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENDITURE TO PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP
March 2013	$  9,484.50
April 2013	$11,983.25  $30,035.96
June 2013	$18,817.17
July 2013	$  9,100.00
August 2013	$18,500.00
September 2013	$26,567.90
October 2013	$17,400.00
November  2013	$  5,006.51
December 2013	$2,300.00   $  300.00
Total	$149,495.29

Source: INVOICES, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHECKS
Note: Subtotal March 2013-July 2013 $79,420.88

City’s Check Register Entries for PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP CONTRACTUAL SERVICES, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT, CONTRAL SERVICES IT SUPPORT SVCS, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTING, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-SYSTEM AMIN SERVICES (May 2013-June 2014)

126298 5/8/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 9,484.50 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $9,484.50 (For Services Performed March 5 – 31, 2013)

126450 6/5/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 11,983.25 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total----->$11,983.25 (For Services Performed April 1 – 30, 2013)

126629 6/19/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $6,612.71 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (For Services Performed May 1 – 31, 2013)
126629 6/19/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $8,338.34 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (For Services Performed May 1 – 31, 2013)
126629 6/19/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $15,084.91 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (For Services Performed April 1 – 30, 2013)
Vendor Total----->$30,035.96

126830 8/2/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $12,801.05 01 67053 CONTRAL SERVICES IT TECH ASSESMENT
126830 8/2/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $6,016.12 01 67053 CONTRAL SERVICES IT SUPPORT SVCS
Vendor Total -----> $18,817.17 (For Services Performed June 1 – 30, 2013)

127102 9/26/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 1,100.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT
127102 9/26/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 4,700.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT
127102 9/26/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 9,400.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTING
127102 9/26/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $ 3,300.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-SYSTEM AMIN SERVICES
Vendor Total ---> $18,500.00 (For Services Performed August 1 – 31, 2013)

127131 10/4/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $6,000.00 01 670S3 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
127131 10/4/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $3,100.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Subtotal: $9,100.00 (For Services Performed July 1 – 31, 2013)
127263 10/23/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $2,000.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127263 10/23/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $18,730.S6 01 670S3 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
127263 10/23/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $5,837.34 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-SYSTEM ADMIN SERVICES
Subtotal: $26,567.90 (For Services Performed September 1 – 30, 2013)
Vendor Total-> $35,667.90

127468 12/6/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $2,200.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVC-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127468 12/6/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $12,600.00 01 67053 CONTRACT 5RVC-IT CONSULTANT
127468 12/6/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $2,600.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVC-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Subtotal: $17,400.00 (For Services Performed October 1 – 31, 2013)
127585 12/20/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $600.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVC-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127585 12/20/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $2,506.51 01 670S3 CONTRACT SRVC-SYSTEM ADMIN SERVICES
127585 12/20/2013 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $1,900.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVC-SYSTEM ADMIN SERVICES
Subtotal: $5,006.51 (For Services Performed October 1 – 31, 2013)
Vendor Total --> $22,406.51

127810 2/5/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $200.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVCS-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127810 2/5/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $2,100.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
Subtotal: $2,300.00 (For Services Performed December 1 – 31, 2013)
127907 2/21/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $300.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVCS-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127907 2/21/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $200.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVCS-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
127907 2/21/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $1,800.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SRVCS-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Subtotal: $2,300.00 (For Services Performed January 1 – 31, 2014)
Vendor Total -- -> $4,600.00

128062 3/20/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $300.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Vendor Total -·-··> $300.00 (For Services Performed December 1 – 31, 2013)

128343 5/9/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $1,400.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICE
128343 5/9/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $500.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICE
128343 5/9/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $17,340.06 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
128343 5/9/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $700.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICE
Subtotal: $19,940.06 (For Services Performed March 1 – 31, 2014)
128450 5/30/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $1,600.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICE
128450 5/30/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $16,841.63 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
128450 5/30/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $500.00 01 67053CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICE
Subtotal: $18,941.63 (For Services Performed April 1 -30, 2014)
Vendor Total - >$38,881.69

128535 6/13/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $5,406.51 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES (For Services Performed February 1 – February 28, 2014)
128622 6/27/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $600.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
128622 6/27/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $1,400.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-TECH ASSESSMENT SERVICES
128622 6/27/2014 PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP $10,855.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT CONSULTANT
Subtotal: $12,855.00 (For Services Performed May 1 – 30, 2014)
Vendor Total -----> $18,261.51

JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. M128436, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT: In JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. M128436, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, the ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document. filing date August 18, 2014, is embedded; the text is reproduced.
Defendant City of Cannel-by-the-Sea, ("Defendant" or "City'·) hereby responds to the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff John Hanson ("Plaintiff') as follows:
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint.
2. Defendant further alleges the following separate and distinct Affirmative Defenses to the causes of action alleged in the Complaint:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs Complaint, and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.

FOURTH AFFIR1v1ATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.

SIXTH AFFIRMITIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is estopped from asserting any of the claims against Defendant contained in the Complaint by reason of his own acts, omissions, representations and courses of conduct.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because the actions respecting the subject matters in the Complaint were undertaken in good faith, with the absence of discriminatory and/or malicious intent to injure Plaintiff, and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the purpose of engaging in and continuing the City's affairs.

EIGHTH AFFIRMITIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies .

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant has not interfered with any protectable property interest alleged in the Complaint.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or part, because the relief sought would improperly interfere with Defendant's discretionary authority.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are subject to setoff, offset, and/or recoupment, including, but not limited to, for moneys paid to Plaintiff that exceeded any amounts to which he was entitled.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or part, because he was an at-will employee of the City.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in pru1, by the privileges and immunities applicable to public agencies.

FOURTEENTH AF'FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any, as required by law.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent Plaintiff has suffered physical or mental injuries-including "emotional distress"-because of Defendant's conduct, any such damages suffered by Plaintiff are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board by operation of California Labor Code section 3200 et seq.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATNE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff ratified, consented, and/or acquiesced to the conduct about which he now complains.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follow:

1. For entry of judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff;

2. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint;

3. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit herein;

4. That Defendant be awarded its attorney fees and costs incurred in defending this suit in accordance with applicable law; and

5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just.

DATED: August 18, 2014

STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH

A Professional Corporation

By ______________________

Jeffrey A. Dinkin

Robert D. Dominguez

Attorneys for Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Hanson v. City of Carmel Answer of Defendant City of Carmel-By-The-sea

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY
JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants
CASE NO. M128436

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT Warrant No. 7682

ABSTRACT: The STATE OF CALIFORNIA – COUNTY OF MONTEREY RETURN FOR SEARCH WARRANT, signed by Officer Rachelle Lightfoot on June 13, 2013, and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Monterey SEARCH WARRANT, signed by the Honorable Judge Robert O’Farrell on June 5, 2013, filed June 13, 2013, Warrant No. 7682 documents are embedded. Evidence type (Penal Code § 1524) “Property or things used as a means of committing a felony” and “Property or things that are evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show a particular person has committed a felony.” Forensic Examiner Mark Alcock was hired by the City and began his investigation of IT Manager Steve McInchak on March 6, 2013. Based on his training and experience and forensic exam, it was his opinion that McInchak was in violation of California Code Section 502. Alcock cited the following sections:

• 502 PC: "Where the law was enacted to protect the integrity of all types and forms of lawfully created computers, computer systems, and computer data that was vital for the protection of the privacy of individuals as well as to the well being of financial institutions, business concerns and governmental agencies."

• 502 (c)(2) PC: "Knowingly accesses and without permission, takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network."

• 502 (c )(7) PC: "Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system or computer network."

Moreover, “the information systems manager was to act under administrative direction, and that the use of access codes of other employees to gain access to their e-mail and phone messages, or any computer account was prohibited except by management. Mclnchak's position was not considered a management position.” The District Attorney’s Office will make its decision to not charge or charge, as a misdemeanor or felony, McInchak based on Carmel Police Department investigative reports and/or analysis of seized items.

 

  

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- COUNTY OF MONTEREY 

RETURN FOR SEARCH WARRANT &
SEARCH WARRANT

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Warrant: IT boss being watched for months

-         Alleges he copied private files

By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone
Published: June 21, 2013

ADDENDUM:

 Information Systems Network Manager Job Description and Policy No. c03-01

INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK MANAGER Job Description & POLICY NO. C03-01

 City Organization 05-07-13

City Organizational Structure

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

Fiscal Year 2013-2014

Proposed Operating Plan & Budget

May 7, 2013